Rodriguez v. Cabral et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Juan C. Rodriguez: Certified copy of inmate account statement to be filed on or before 6/24/16. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 5/26/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
______________________________
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
INVESTIGATOR CABRAL, et al., )
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
JUAN C. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,

C.A. No. 16-203 S

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before the Court is a civil rights Complaint (ECF No. 1)
filed by Plaintiff Juan C. Rodriguez, pro se, an inmate at
the Adult Correctional Institutions (“ACI”), Cranston, Rhode
Island, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Rodriguez has also

filed an Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees
and Affidavit (ECF No. 2) (“Application”).
The Court is required to screen the Complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

Having done so, the

Court finds, on initial review, that the Complaint states a
claim on which relief may be granted.
I.

Complaint
A.
In

Law
connection

with

proceedings

in

forma

pauperis,

§ 1915(e)(2) instructs the Court to dismiss a case at any
time

if

the

Court

determines

that

the

action:

“(i)

is

frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
§ 1915(e)(2).

28 U.S.C.

Similarly, § 1915A directs courts to screen

complaints filed by prisoners against a governmental entity,
officer, or employee of such entity and dismiss the complaint,
or any portion thereof, for reasons identical to those set
forth in § 1915(e)(2)(B).
“The

legal

28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

standard

for

dismissing

a

complaint

for

failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A
is identical to the standard used when ruling on a Rule
12(b)(6) motion.”

Chase v. Chafee, No. CA 11-586 ML, 2011 WL

6826504, at *2 (D.R.I. Dec. 9, 2011) (citing Pelumi v. Landry,
No. 08-107, 2008 WL 2660968, at *2 (D.R.I. June 30, 2008)).
The

Court

must

review

pleadings

of

a

pro

se

plaintiff

liberally, accepting his well-pled allegations as true, and
construing them in the light most favorable to him.

Id.,

(citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).

However, “the Court

need not credit bald assertions, unverifiable conclusions or
irrational factual allegations.”
at 678).
the

Id. (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S.

To state a claim on which relief may be granted,

complaint

must

“contain
2

sufficient

factual

matter,

accepted

as

true,

to

‘state

plausible on its face.’”

a

claim

to

relief

that

Id. (quoting Iqbal, 566 U.S. at

678).
B.

Discussion

Rodriguez alleges that a number of ACI officers and
officials have violated his rights under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments, and a permanent federal injunction.
(Compl. ¶¶ 47-50.)

He names as Defendants Investigator

Cabral, Lieutenant Burt, Deputy Warden Aceto, Lieutenant
Amaral, Warden Matthew Kettle, and Director of the R.I.
Department of Corrections Ashbel T. Wall II.
9.)

All

capacities.

are

sued

in

(Id.)

their

Rodriguez

individual
seeks

(Id. ¶¶ 4-

and

official

declaratory

and

injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and
costs.

is

(Id. ¶¶ 53-60.)

In brief, Rodriguez alleges that: false charges were
filed against him for retaliatory reasons; guilty findings
were not supported by evidence; alleged evidence against
him was not disclosed; disciplinary hearings were not held
before an impartial fact-finder; and guilty findings and
sanctions imposed were upheld, all in violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

(Compl. ¶ 47.)

Rodriguez further alleges that the excessive confinement
3

(169

days)

in

segregation

imposed,

as

well

as

the

corresponding loss of privileges, constituted cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and
also violated a permanent federal injunction.

(Id. ¶¶ 48-

49.)

acted

Finally,

he

claims

that

Defendants

with

deliberate indifference, again in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, by acting negligently and maliciously “in the
filing, for retaliatory purposes, finding of guilt, and
upholding of false charges.”

(Id. ¶ 50.)

The Complaint contains sufficient detail in support
of Rodriguez’s allegations, (id. ¶¶ 11-45), accepted as
true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl., 550 U.S.

at 570).

The Court therefore concludes that the Complaint

survives initial scrutiny under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
II.

Application
As noted above, Rodriguez has also filed an Application

to proceed in forma pauperis. He filed the affidavit required
by

28

U.S.C.

§

1915(a)(1);

however,

Rodriguez

has

not

submitted a copy of his inmate account statement, certified
by

an

appropriate

official

at

4

the

ACI,

as

directed

by

§ 1915(a)(2). 1

Accordingly, Rodriguez is ordered to file a

certified copy of his account statement on or before June 24,
If he fails to do so, his Application will be denied. 2

2016.

III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the instant
Complaint survives preliminary screening under §§ 1915(e) and

1

Section 1915(a)(2)

provides that:

(2) A prisoner seeking to bring a civil action or
appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding
without prepayment of fees or security therefor, in
addition to filing the affidavit filed under
paragraph (1), shall submit a certified copy of the
trust fund account statement (or institutional
equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period
immediately preceding the filing of the complaint
or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate
official of each prison at which the prisoner is or
was confined.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
The prison official must certify
that the statement, showing all receipts, expenditures, and
balances during the specified 6-month period, is accurate and
sign the statement. (Application 3, ECF No. 2.)
2

The Court notes that, even if his Application is
granted, Rodriguez is still required to pay the statutory
filing fee of $350 for this action. Pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, adopted April 25, 1996, and
codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner seeking to
file in forma pauperis must pay as an initial filing fee the
greater of 20% of the average monthly deposits to his account
or the average monthly balance for the 6 months prior to the
filing of his Complaint. Subsequently, a prisoner must pay
monthly 20% of the previous month’s balance in his account
each time the amount in the account exceeds $10. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(2).
5

1915A and may proceed. Rodriguez, however, is ordered to
submit a certified copy of his inmate account statement on or
before June 24, 2016, or his Application will be denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: May 26, 2016

6